United Nations ccpr/C/106/D/1932/2010




Yüklə 100.52 Kb.
səhifə3/3
tarix17.04.2016
ölçüsü100.52 Kb.
1   2   3

Pursuant to rule 90 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, Committee member Sir Nigel Rodley did not participate in the adoption of the present decision.



1  The original text in Russian reads as follows: “Гомосексуализм – это нормально".

2  The original text in Russian reads as follows: “Я горжусь своей гомосексуальностью".

3  The original text in Russian reads as follows: "Публичные действия, направленные на пропаганду гомосексуализма (мужеложства и лесбиянства) среди несовершеннолетних, - влекут наложение административного штрафа на граждан в размере от одной тысячи пятисот до двух тысяч рублей".

4  Approximately US$ 44.9/33.6 euros.

5  Reference is made the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia (application No. 18147/02), 5 April 2007, para. 92 and judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. United Kingdom (application No. 5493/72), 7 December 1976, para. 49.

6  The original text in Russian reads as follows: "Административные правонарушения, посягающие на здоровье, санитарно-эпидемиологическое благополучие населения и общественную нравственость".

7  Concluding Observations: Russian Federation, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, 28/10/2009, para. 27.

8  Reference is made to the letter No. 1536-7/gen of the Supreme Court dated 20 August 2003 on the explanations in relation to the procedure for entry into force of the rulings and/or decisions on administrative offences when they are being appealed.

9  Reference is made to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Martynets v. Russia (application No. 29612/09), 5 November 2009, in which the Court examined the "new" supervisory review procedure (in force since 7 January 2008) governed by the Civil Procedure Code and concluded that “the supervisory review procedure in the courts of general jurisdiction retain[ed] the essential features that earlier compelled the Court to consider it as being outside the chain of domestic remedies subject to exhaustion under article 35, paragraph 1, of the Convention”. Furthermore, the Court found that “the supervisory review proceedings in respect of legally binding judgments [might] still be conducted through multiple instances, with an ensuing risk that the case [would] go back and forth from one instance to another for an indefinite period”.

10  Communication No. 61/1979, Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, Views adopted on 2 April 1982.

11  Reference is made to communication No. 488/1992, Toonen v. Australia, Views adopted on 31 March 1994, para. 8.7.

12  Reference is made to the Individual Opinion of Torkel Opsahl in Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, note Error: Reference source not found above.

13  Reference is made to Toonen v. Australia, note Error: Reference source not found above; and judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (application No. 7525/76), 22 October 1981.

14  Reference is made to Toonen v. Australia, note Error: Reference source not found above; communication No. 941/2000, Young v. Australia, Views adopted on 6 August 2003, para. 10.4. See also, General Comment No. 20 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/C/20, 2 July 2009, at para. 32; General Comment No. 2 of the Committee against Torture (Implementation of article 2 by States Parties), CAT/C/GC/2, at para. 21; General Comment No. 4 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child), CRC/GC/2003/4, at para.6.

15  Reference is made to the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1606669.

16  Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Annex, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4 (1984) at principle 2; Committee’s General Comment No. 22 (Right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, at para. 8.

17  Committee’s General Comment No. 22, ibid.; and the Individual Opinion of Torkel Opsahl in Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, note Error: Reference source not found above.

18  Reference is made to the Committee’s General Comment No. 18 (The right to non-discrimination), at para. 13.

19  General Comment No. 20 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, note Error: Reference source not found above, at para.13.

20  Reference is made to Toonen v. Australia, note Error: Reference source not found above, at para. 8.6; and judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland (applications Nos. 14234/88 and 14235/88), 29 October 1992, at para. 65.

21  The legal opinion, inter alia, quotes the case-law of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the Philippines Supreme Court.

22  Reference is also made to the General Comment No. 3 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (HIV/AIDS and the Rights of the Child), CRC/GC/2003/3, 17 March 2003, at para. 16; and the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC/C/15/Add.188, 9 October 2002, at para. 44(d).

23  Reference is made to the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Education, A/HRC/8/10/Add.1, 13 May 2008, at paras. 79-84, and A/HRC/4/29/Add.1, 15 March 2007, at paras. 34-37. See also, European Committee of Social Rights, INTERIGHTS v. Croatia, 30 March 2009.

24  Emphasis is added by the State party.

25  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Alekseyev v. Russia (applications Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09), 21 October 2010, at paras. 82-84. The Court found a violation of article 11; article 13 in conjunction with article 11; and article 14 in conjunction with article 11 of the European Convention.

26  a) On 28 September 2011, parliament of the Arkhangelsk Region passed a similar law which prohibited propaganda of homosexuality among minors. This law came into force in October 2011. On 16 November 2011, the same parliament passed amendments to the Arkhangelsk Region Law on Administrative Offences establishing administrative liability for propaganda of homosexuality among minors. b) On 16 November 2011, the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly adopted in its first reading a law which prohibited “propaganda of sexual act between men, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism and paedophilia” and introduced fines for such actions. According to the media reports, an amendment of 7 March 2012 to the Law on Administrative Offences in St. Petersburg established administrative liability for “public actions aimed at propaganda of sexual act between men, lesbianism, bisexualism and transgenderism among minors” (article 7.1) and “public actions aimed at propaganda of paedophilia” (article 7.2). c) On 16 November 2011, the speaker of the Moscow City Duma (parliament) said in the interview that the law banning propaganda of homosexuality among minors would definitely be passed in Moscow. d) On 17 November 2011, the speaker of the Federation Council (upper chamber of the State Duma) supported introduction of a similar law on federal level.

27  Earlier attempts to introduce a similar law were taken on the national level in Lithuania. The proposals were rejected only after the interference from the European Union. A similar law which prohibits propaganda of homosexuality is currently being discussed in Ukraine.

28  See, communication No. 4/1977, Ramirez v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 23 July 1980, para. 5.

29  Communication No. 327/1988, Barzhig v. France, Views adopted on 11 April 1991, para. 5.1; and Young v. Australia, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 9.4.

30  Communication No. 550/1993, Faurisson v. France, Views adopted on 8 November 1996, para. 6.1.

31  Communication No.780/1997, Laptsevich v. Belarus, Views adopted on 20 March 2000, para. 8.1.

32  See, Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 on article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011), para. 2.

33  Ibid, at para. 22.

34  See, the Committee’s General Comment No. 34, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 26; and Toonen v. Australia, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 8.3.

35  Committee’s General Comment No. 34, ibid; and the Committee’s General Comment No. 18, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, at para. 13.

36  Ibid., at para. 32.

37  See, Toonen v. Australia, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 8.7; Young v. Australia, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 10.4; and communication No. 1361/2005, X. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 30 March 2007, para. 7.2.

38  See, inter alia, communication No. 172/1984, Broeks v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 9 April 1982, para. 13; communication No. 182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 9 April 1982, para.13; communication No. 218/1986, H. Vos v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 29 March 1989, para 11.3; communication No. 415/1990, Pauger v. Austria, Views adopted on 26 March 1992, para 7.3; communication No. 919/2000, Müller and Engelhard v. Namibia, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para 6.7; and communication No. 976/2001, Derksen v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 1 April 2004, para. 9.2.

39  See, inter alia, communication No. 1314/2004, O’Neill and Quinn v. Ireland, Views adopted on 24 July 2006, para. 8.3.

40  See, Young v. Australia, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 10.4; and X. v. Colombia, supra n. Error: Reference source not found, para. 7.2.

GE.12
1   2   3


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə